My only critique of the critique, is not about Alan's article, but that the website complains of competing interests in ISSN, which I agree with but, you can't have your cake and eat it to. I'd say being the poster boy for intermittent fasting is a competing interest in itself. We all have competing interests in one form or another, even when money is not involved. For instance, I have an absolute disdain for certain popular strength coaches, I can't help it, when they are irresponsible, loud-mouthed, money grabbing DB's. So, my personal disdain is a competing interest in itself. You have to question what I say when it is a critique of their ideas. I just may be a little better at expressing my ideas in an intelligent fashion . So, hopefully, my arguments and explanations shine through. And this is all we can ultimately hope for, not perfection, but integrity.

However, when it comes to the ISSN it's a bit ridiculous to own a supplement company, like one that sells protein supplements, and claim you have no competing interests when it comes to people 'eating more often' and at least several of the regular author's there are "all up in the money" in regards to supplement companies. Meal replacements and the like are going to be one of the main avenues for frequent meals. But this is hardly new..the issn has been making position statements like this one for quite a while and they are all questionable, at best, but that doesn't mean they are all bunk. It's easy to yell competing interests..but I'd advise to judge it own it's own merits or you'll be throwing out every other paper you see by the same token.

I do agree with Alan's critique of the ISSN position stand, but I'm not comfortable with mixing factual statements with facts that are still under research.

Reading John Berardi's name next to recommendation for more frequent meals is fine if its an article on T-rag. But here it really does seem that to an extent they are thinking of their wallets first. However, some of the statements made are well researched, so thats a plus for ISSN, however as I mentioned earlier I feel something is amiss somehow.

but I'm not comfortable with mixing factual statements with facts that are still under research.

Then you may as well not worry about this kind of stuff at all. There are very few "factual statements" to be made but it is always going to be the same. Science is not absolute, as you well know, especially nutrition related science.

Science is not absolute, as you well know, especially nutrition related science.

Agreed. But I think what the ISSN position stand is also trying to gloss over this fact, by throwing in statements that still need further research. Of course in nutrition science, what is held as a fact today maybe changed tomorrow with further research, but why throw in things that are relatively more debatable(because they need more research) than stuff which has been more thoroughly researched.

What I mean is statements like this:

Increased meal frequency appears to have a positive effect on various blood markers of health, particularly LDL cholesterol, total cholesterol, and insulin.
Increasing meal frequency appears to help decrease hunger and improve appetite control.

Those seem questionable. It makes you thibnk why they would suggest such a think. Especially since when most of us think increasing meal frequency, the first thing to come to our mind is MRP's or protein powders/bars.

Agreed. But I think what the ISSN position stand is also trying to gloss over this fact, by throwing in statements that still need further research. Of course in nutrition science, what is held as a fact today maybe changed tomorrow with further research, but why throw in things that are relatively more debatable(because they need more research) than stuff which has been more thoroughly researched.

Okay, I catch your drift. The thing is, ISSN is a "sports nutrition organizaton" that also has its own journal. This is an important distinction. You would not see regular scientific journals making such "position statements". You might see editorials..but they are editorials. So they are saying, this is our interpretation, where we stand, on the evidence thus far. This no different than the NSCA having a position stand on some training question, which they do as well. To some extent, we always have to interpret and have the science inform what we do, therefore we have a "stand" on it. It's always good not to get entrenched in such a fashion as this.

Given that…what you are saying is that, sometimes, there is not enough evidence to take a stand. Absolutely, I could not agree more. This is the problem with public declarations from institutions…they can't say "its too soon to draw any conclusions, we don't know enough." Creating institutionalized knowledge is all this is about and I am against it on principle.

The thing is, ISSN is a "sports nutrition organizaton" that also has its own journal. This is an important distinction. You would not see regular scientific journals making such "position statements". You might see editorials..but they are editorials. So they are saying, this is our interpretation, where we stand, on the evidence thus far. This no different than the NSCA having a position stand on some training question, which they do as well.

Oh I though they were like a scientific journal ( like Lancet or something similar).

Given that…what you are saying is that, sometimes, there is not enough evidence to take a stand.

Yeah thats exactly what I wanted to say…lol that exactly sums up what I meant.